Thursday, February 02, 2006

This guy on NPR made a very astute observation about the Best Picture nominations this year (I can never remember the names of people I hear on NPR because I'm driving and doing my ADD station-changing thingy). Take a close look at these films and see if you can spot why one of these things is not like the other:

BEST MOTION PICTURE OF THE YEARBrokeback Mountain Capote Crash Good Night, And Good Luck.Munich

If you haven't guessed it yet, let's sort these films by their budget costs, starting with the least expensive and working on up to the most expensive:

I included the amount each film has grossed to date, although that number means relatively little since some of these films (like Crash) have been released for considerably longer than others (like Munich). Still, it is interesting to see how much a $6.5 million film can gross.

Now that you've looked at the list, it should become glaringly obvious—4 out 5 films from this year's nominations had remarkably small budgets, and thus were distributed by independent studios, not the big studios like Paramount and Universal. This stands in extreme contrast to the 2004 nominations (also sorted from least expensive to most expensive):

Aside from the surprising fact that all five of these films made over $109 million regardless of their budget, the average budget for a Best Picture nomination went from $44.2 million in 2004 to $20.9 million in 2005, which is a drop of 52.7%. If you don't include Munich, the average budget for a 2005 Best Pic nom drops to an astonishing $8.6 million, or a difference of 80.5% from 2004 film budgets.

That guy on NPR credits the proliferation of home theatre systems as the catalyst that pushed cheaper, more introspective films into theatres to lure families out from their cushy Hi-Def light projectors. While I'm sure that's true, perhaps even the main reason, I'm sure it's also easier to convince an Executive Producer to invest in an $8 million film that has depth than an $80 million Spectacular Spectacular. Indeed, that same Producer could create 10 to 15 such films for the price of one Armageddon or Titanic.

That said, why did Crash—arguably the best film of the year—have difficulty getting financing?

Cheadle wasn't surprised when financing entities started to turn them down. Asked who did so, he says, "Everybody! Every studio! We'd think we were getting somewhere with one person, and they would kick it out."

Crash was turned down because it was so controversial. But guess what? The audience wants to see controversial. And that's the supreme irony of this business: the films that audiences most want to see are the ones no one has the guts to make. The only reason why films like Theron's Monster, or Clooney's Good Night, And Good Luck., or Cheadle's Crash get made is because big-name actors feel obliged to become producers... as named talent, they have the clout to inspire other named talent be attached regardless of the "incendiary" subject matter or consequent lack of investor commitment.

Write a brilliant script. Get a named talent (and a name who's talented), or five. Shoot it inexpensively. These are the new keys to getting an Oscar.